Tag Archives: hypocrisy

YouTube Demonetisation: Right Wing Snowflake Hypocrisy

In light of the new hysteria regarding the earnings of “professional YouTubers” with a right-leaning discourse, some things just need to be said, and pardon the occasional lack of politeness, as this is largely coming from the – still unflinching – Trump bandwagon.

Though I should probably start with the facts versus feelings trope, used by them when convenient but cast aside when it comes to the legal framework they agreed to when starting their careers, I will do so with a parallel which really gets on my nerves.

This is presented as an injustice striking content creators deemed undesirable by the YouTube platform, based only on their political opinions. The retraction of an opportunity they once took when the selection criteria for monetisation were more loose, thus allowing them to express their views freely – and a lucrative one, for a number of years.

I hate to sound pretentious when mentioning karma, but I do wonder how loud their protesting voices were when innocent workers and students were threatened with swift exclusion from the US after Trump’s attempted immigration ban. Didn’t their livelihoods, threatened at the unexpected, mere stroke of a pen, matter at all?

If governments are allowed to turn people’s lives upside-down by excluding them unfairly, overnight, is it immoral for a private company in a capitalist country to do the same?

Obviously, I’m not fully comparing the endangering of a hobby-turned-job, of people who are fully able to get a real one, to the complete upturning of immigrants’ lives. I’m only pointing out the queasiness of their lamentation for what qualifies as a uniquely first world problem, and a shallow one at that. Especially when that lamentation comes after their support, vocal or tacit, of said draconian policies.

Or how about the hard working, tax paying illegal immigrants, suddenly hunted down in the hundreds and thousands, to the point of being afraid to leave their homes, after being accepted by previous administrations with check-ins and the likes?

The Trump administration “restructured”. So did YouTube. So they want support, compassion, righteous indignation. Where was theirs, for the masses of people whose livelihoods were swiftly taken from them, or the ones living in constant fear? The message of most Trump supporting YouTube careerists was not even suck it up or life is tough; it was absent, tacitly complicit, if not giddy, considering the constant, though abstract, lauding of ‘tightening the borders’, as a concept, with no regard towards individuals . While the mainstream media, as corrupt as it is, did cover the real struggles of real individuals (human beings, not statistics) during these changes, they were silent.

The human suffering brought on by these policies is impossible to ignore. As repelled as one can be by the term ‘privilege’ when exaggeratedly used by progressives, this approach, honestly, reeks of it.

Content creators posting certain views on YouTube, upon creating an account, were aware YouTube was owned by Google, a company with declared liberal values. Hence they knowingly have been taking advantage of permissive rules in what they knew was an ideologically adverse environment. They took the opportunity.

So did, far more daringly, those who moved to a country where they knew they were not fully wanted. The conundrum and scale of the loss cannot be compared by any standards.

I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

How does it feel to be suddenly unwanted, cast aside, after making an honest existence on the same terms for years?

Of course, YouTubers still have options; plenty of them. The people shoved from a country they’d made their home do not.

 

 

 

Women Pressured Into Abortion – The Subject Feminists Avoid

We read so much these days about women’s rights and how abortion should always be portrayed by the media as the right choice in difficult circumstances. We read about how too much counselling before an abortion is an infringement on these rights, as it might get some to reconsider (as if this were a bad thing) or feel undue remorse afterwards.

However, there are sides to this subject feminists just won’t touch (just like, due to the marvel called intersectionality, they don’t go near the horrors suffered by women in Islamic theocracies). Besides ignoring the facts of the procedure (going as far as defending late term abortions), they also ignore an important part of the cause – which is external pressure.

There are shelters for women who are physically harmed by partners; there is protection from so many types of abuse except one – the psychological coercion of a woman to abort her baby, sometimes relentless, which often involves threats of divorce, homelessness, abandonment and the withdrawal of minimal support for her to have the child or even sustain herself. 

Pro-life activists are covering this intensely; the debate however does not reach the mainstream, as abortion is seen as a “woman’s right” almost exclusively (excluding the rights of the women being “terminated”, as abortion survivor Gianna Jessen points out).

Again, feminists tend to think this is the right choice in a seemingly impossible situation, such as the father not wanting the child, the economical situation being precarious, the mother being underage and unable to support the baby or herself.

But is it really the woman’s choice of what to do with her body when all the negative factors influencing her are external? When she feels she has to make this decision as she has no alternative, because there is no support available? 

Is the only road a woman felt like she could take at one given time the right one for her? How is this defined as her choice in the first place? Saying there was nothing else I could do at the time does not equal this is what I wanted – and yet, this sort of decision would be commended by feminists as mature and brave under the circumstances, without taking the woman’s suffering into account.

People pressuring a woman into an abortion is not an unavoidable fact of nature. It’s a matter of power imbalance, which feminists love to mention every time they feel hard done by when a man gets them to take on more “emotional labour” then they are getting. Power imbalance is mentioned so often – and yet there is no greater power imbalance than the ability to get someone to kill their own child under extreme threats.

I witnessed a similar situation which still makes me boil. It did not involve abortion but the forced giving of a newborn up for adoption. The mother was in the same hospital ward as me after giving birth. She told me, as well as hospital staff (and eventually the authorities, which did not lift a finger) that her hubby – a piece of scum beyond redemption – was forcing her to give the baby up, under threat of eviction and separation from the three children they already had together. He’d previously tried to psychologically force her to have an abortion but had not succeeded. She wanted to keep her baby girl and raise her, but was dependant in every way on the husband’s family, whose home she was living in; the scumbag’s family agreed with him that the child should just disappear. She faced having nowhere to live and no income. Besides that, she already had three kids at home and did not want to be forcibly separated from them as she was their primary carer. All I could do was try to put her in touch with charities and similar organisations; I’m not sure she ever contacted them. I also asked a relative of mine who was a lawyer for advice and he called the police; he said she was entitled to state protection. It went nowhere; it spun in a bureaucratic circle for the few days we were there. Unfortunately, I was in no position to help either as I did not have the living conditions or financial stability at the time (although looking back I feel like kicking myself for not trying to figure out a way; perhaps it wouldn’t have been absolutely impossible). In the meantime, hubby dearest kept phoning her to call her names (as she was lying on a hospital bed recovering from giving birth). At one point he even suggested she put something over the baby’s face and leave her somewhere. I felt like cracking that man’s skull with my bare hands. She kept on taking the calls for some reason and was distraught the whole time, trying to sort out accommodation and figure out a way to care for all her kids. The bastard swore he’d make her life hell; she couldn’t take her kids back from him as she had no income or housing. Even if someone had taken her in with the baby she wouldn’t have been financially stable enough for it to matter in court. Eventually she decided there was no other way than to give her baby girl up for adoption and go back to the bastard to raise her other kids in the only home she had. It took her days of constant crying, barely any sleep and being given no hope by those she appealed to. What would feminists say before that type of case? Many would say an abortion would have been better in the first place.

This was absolutely not her choice. It was a horrible experience to even watch, never mind live.

Nor is it the choice of so many women who decide to abort their babies because those around them threaten them constantly.

Helplessness is not empowerment. 

Instead of advocating for women’s right to abort their babies (which they’ve already got), why not also advocate for women’s right to keep their babies when facing this sort of trouble, which I’m sure is not uncommon?

What exactly is feminism’s stance regarding the situation in China, where forced abortions are carried out and newborns are drowned in buckets or dumped in fountains for being female? They say nothing as they want the word “abortion” to build this positive aura around it – which most people viscerally reject, even when meeting others halfway ideologically. I believe little concerns them if not directly relatable.

I can also share a different story – a story about real systemic oppression.

During the later part of the communist period, abortion was forbidden in my country. So was contraception; it was not available. The purpose was to produce as many people who would increase the workforce. Of course the absolute cretins did not ensure that those children could be provided for and looked after since both parents were forced to work and the country was in dire poverty for a long time. That’s how women turned to back alley abortions. Not because those abortions were their choice, but because the nature of the system made it so that they could not have a normal couple life (denying their husbands sex would have ended in being left eventually) or a normal family life (many children brought up in those times were raised by grandparents, part time or full time, myself included).

My brother’s bones lie somewhere in a communal skip outside Bucharest. So do those of most of my brothers and sisters, whom I don’t know the exact number of and will not ask again, not wanting to cause trauma. That’s what they used to do in those days – and still do in China now. Finding out shocked me but did not make me pro-life; that had been my conviction all along; it absolutely strengthened my conviction. Whereas I can understand the pressure of the times and the motivation of the women seeking these abortions (some to later regret it, especially when babies were delivered alive and still moving), I cannot understand those who “helped” them do this – who could have easily killed those women, under the guise of friendship or for some money. Some had no medical training whatsoever. My brother was killed with the “help” of a nursery teacher – who was also my Godmother. She Christened my sister, then killed and dumped my brother in the trash, then off she went back to church to Christen me a year later. It turns my stomach. I don’t ever want to see the woman again but if I did I might just spit in her face (for the first time to ever behave that way). Although if I asked for details she might just tell me how she did it in the most callous of ways.

Feminists would jump at this opportunity to shout that making abortion legal and accessible would have solved the problems of women who “clearly wanted abortions”. 

Except those women didn’t.

They were forced into poverty, forced into work instead of being home makers and forcibly denied contraception, though it was available at the time (at least condoms were being marketed in Europe but could not be sold here). Those women did not choose abortion because it was “right” or “something they wanted”. Some lived in perpetual hope they would never have to have another one again.

That is a true example of systemic oppression when it comes to reproductive rights. 

I also want to share an uplifting story of refusing abortion and sending children away despite very difficult circumstances. In my grandmother’s day abortion used to happen (feminists often dismiss today’s gruesome statistics by saying it has happened since times immemorial). She never had any (and told me for a fact, without me asking). She had nine children. Lost one to measles in infancy and one to a motorbike crash. She was widowed twice – once by war and again by a construction site accident. She was offered help by the state in terms of taking some of the children into state care and categorically refused. A few decades later, her children have kids and grandkids of their own, most having gone through higher education and established a career. All originating from sheer poverty and destitution. My sister and I were also raised by her while the system did not allow our parents to do so, and for some years after. If anyone asked me the childish question of who my hero was I’d say definitely my Gran. It seems natural instincts are so strong in some people that they fear nothing and stop at nothing for their families.

Spare the family anecdotes, some might say – the world is immense and diverse. And so it is.

What I know for a fact is that no woman ever plans to have an abortion at some point in her life. No woman grows up picturing abortion as a part of her future.

Circumstances cause this and some of these circumstances need addressing.

Feminists often speak of the emancipation of teens and the authority teenage women should have over their bodies – especially in terms of being able to access abortions. How aware are they that so many young women undergo abortions pressured by their families, in order not to lose face or not risk compromising their daughters’ academic future?

Many types of pressure are considered criminal and decisions made under duress are not always considered valid.

However, trying to corner a woman in this manner is merely frowned upon in some situations and even commended in others.

It should be criminal. Women who are financially or otherwise dependent on the person trying to coerce them into an abortion should be protected. It should be a basic human right. End of story. 

 

 

 

 

Feminists, Abortion And The Media – It Doesn’t Get Much Sicker

Three Ways The Media Could Step Up To Stop Abortion Stigma

Whereas many feminist articles are of a cringeworthy stupidity, some are much, much darker. This one is potentially the sickest one I’ve read so far. I think even a segment of those who are pro-choice would agree. These are the main ideas:

  • Television and cinema productions should be used as political propaganda (which is the case already, but not overtly), in order to shape people’s moral values according to cultural Marxism. Depictions of abortion on the screen should be policed for conveying anything but the idea that it is always the right choice.
  • Abortion should be shown “in all its glory”, portrayed as a normal part of life and a positive decision women do not regret, in order to desensitise people into thinking there is no trauma involved.
  • An emphasis should be placed on “all its benefits”, disregarding the “scare tactics” of the “anti-choice” bunch (disregarding disturbing truths about its physical and psychological consequences, as well as the prosperous industry built around it).

Just reading through this is morbid and chilling.

I want to see people on my television having abortions. I want to see them thinking it through, weighing the options, and choosing what’s best for themselves and their families. I want to see people at the clinic, filling out the paperwork.

I want to see them in the procedure room talking to the doctor. I want to see them after their abortions as they wait to go home and in their kitchens having a bowl of cereal the next day.

I want to see people so sure about their choice they don’t think twice, and I want to see people not as sure, but who end up making the decision that’s right for them. I want to see people who never think about their abortions again, as well as people for whom they become a formative experience that impacts their entire life.

These are all things that people experience every single day, and I want to see them on screen. I demand to see them because representation is important, and we all deserve to see the real experiences we have day-in-and-day-out in the media. That’s the only way we can normalize these experiences.

In a matter of years, abortion has gone from being accepted as an extreme choice faced by women in circumstances of extreme pressure, to this – a normal, day-in-and-day-out experience. As a spit in the face to all those who have suffered as a result, in so many ways. The want it promoted. They enjoy watching these scenes;  they demand more of them.

These are the same individuals who also demand trigger warnings in literature courses, yet at the same time, revel in depictions of what is, however you want to frame it morally, a gruesome procedure, as described by medical staff who performed or witnessed it.

Never does this person care about the reality of those who regret having gone through with it. Where are their trigger warnings in this frenzied celebration of death?

The only thing I assume she does not want to see is the bloodied limbs scattered on a tray, the severed heads or the babies born alive and left to die. Or does she?

How long will it be until the above-mentioned images are themselved portrayed as normal, against every natural reaction a human being is born with (if they’re lucky enough to be born, nowadays)? I guess that answers it:

The thing is, though: We don’t just need to see abortions. We also need to see factual representations of what abortion actually looks like.

The only such issues mentioned in the other article (if you click on the link) are “cramps, pain, vomiting and blood”.  I guess the dead body is not factual enough; we can always leave that one out. The little cartoon also adds “the sense of pride in making the right decision”.

Some would argue that going from the acceptance of an irreversible act to pride is a very long stretch.

I also want to see all the people who have abortions.

Women, women of color, teens, mothers, trans men, non-binary people – everybody! I want to see people experiencing what all of these people actually experience.

Of course. Why should they be left out of the macabre party? The tone is very unsettling; it’s almost joyful.

Instead of depicting abortion using medical falsehoods and anti-choice scare tactics, we need more factual and honest representations that show abortion for what it is: just something that happens to some people.

Talking about honesty while omitting the most relevant aspect of this procedure: a dead body having suffered a horrendously violent death.

Decapitation is also something that happens to some people. Quite often, in certain parts of the world. And they surely celebrate it there. It’s true that certain folks – perhaps even most – can be desensitised to witnessing just about anything. All it takes is enough brainwashing and every natural instinct goes out the window.

Later edit

Actually, I was wrong. It does get sicker, but coming from the same band. Here is an article titled “5 Problems With Keep Abortion Rare.

Declared proudly by former President Clinton and repeated by “pro-choice” politicians over the last decade, the phrase often accompanies a plea to keep abortion legal.You’ll see it on signs and banners at an abortion rally,  with the phrase: “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Rare.” This sentiment is often championed and portrayed as “something we can all agree on.” But is it really a desire we have, let alone one that we should be making heard? Is it even right?  How does this kind of logic affect the abortion movement and all those who seek abortions?

Perhaps the logic is in not treating this lightly, as an ordinary occurrence, since it affects lives irreversibly. Perhaps it is in recognising the fact that no one grows up planning to have abortions; it is no one’s intent or desire when starting their intimate life to end up in that situation. Perhaps it is in admitting the difficulty and sensitivity of a decision most times taken after a long emotional struggle. Not to mention the intention to focus on prevention rather than women having to go through this.

As feminists, one would think they are all for this positive focus, instead of encouraging the use of a traumatic procedure as birth control. One would think they want women to experience as little suffering as possible, both physically and mentally. Why not make an issue out of using contraception and reducing the number of abortions then?

1. We Can’t ‘Keep Abortion Rare’ Because It Isn’t

Abortion isn’t rare.

1-in-3 women in the United States will have had an abortion by the time she is 45.

This is an experience that a lot of people have had, and it’s far more common than many of us are willing to admit. Thanks to that big awful bubble of stigma, many of us just keep our stories locked up and hidden away in shame.

Which doesn’t make it the optimal outcome or the status quo in perpetuity.

There were times in history when infant mortality was very high, and mortality in general, due to diseases which are now treatable. Most families would lose a child or two at a very young age, which amounted to grim statistics. And yet, thanks to medicine progressing, those statistics did not last forever.

Also, in our day and age, people are being murdered in remote parts of the world for heresy, homosexuality or adultery. That amounts to very grim statistics indeed – but does not mean that things will remain the same or that change should not be attempted where it is needed.

Beneath the desire to keep abortion rare, people say, is a desire to reduce unintended pregnancies, which is completely legitimate.

Unintended pregnancies are hard, can put undue stress on everyone involved, and can be reduced in pretty simple ways, like better sexuality education and greater access to contraception.

But the word being used here isn’t unintended pregnancies, it’s abortion.

And when people say “keep abortion rare,”they’re promoting a narrative that says abortion is inherently a bad thing.

But abortion isn’t something bad, and it isn’t something to be ashamed of.  It can actually be a positive experience for some people and is something that many people are glad that they have access to when they need it.

It’s unfortunate and hurtful to our movement when people who identify as pro-choice continue to view and promote the perspective of abortion as a “bad” thing and something to reduce.

The author somehow seeks to separate the concept of abortion from that of unintended pregnancies – which is disingenuous. To claim that something is needed and has to happen even though it is fully preventable in most cases is downright absurd.

It is never the ideal outcome – in fact it is the worst possible outcome of a sexual encounter (except maybe for HIV, some would argue). It is not a positive experience, but merely seen as the less disastrous option at one point in time.

The fact is, abortion is a relatively simple medical procedure and should be viewed similarly to other medical procedures in that all those who need or want it should have access to it.

Tell that to the families of the women who died during that “life-saving” “simple” procedure (not to mention their offspring, but I understand they don’t matter anyway).  Or to the women who became infertile. Or to those who are now regretting it.

I have to quote this in full because it’s not only imbecilic but actually chilling.

3. Not Rare, But Accessible

If we need a slogan, why don’t we make it, “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Accessible?”  Because that’s our biggest problem today.

With countless women needing abortions and not being able to have them due to legal, geographical, and financial barriers, the number of abortions in the US is, if anything, actuallytoo low.

When there are women who can’t get an abortion because they live in one of the 87% of counties in America that does not have an abortion clinic, that number is too low.

When there are poor women all over the country who can’t get an abortion because the Hyde amendment prohibits Medicaid from helping women pay for abortions, that number is too low.

When are there are girls under 18 who can’t get abortions because of parental notification laws in their state, that number is too low.

When there are women who don’t get an abortion because of scare tactics through crisis pregnancy centers and mandatory counseling laws, that number is too low.

When there are women who don’t get an abortion because of harassment and violence outside of abortion clinics, that number is too low.

When there are women and girls who don’t get an abortion due to the intense cultural stigma and shame surrounding the medical procedure, that number is too low.

We don’t need to lower the number of abortions happening in a time when too many women who need an abortion cannot get one.

I have to take exception to a couple of points. But first, let’s clarify that the number of preventable deaths and traumas in this world is never too low.

The author mentions women under 18. They are not women. They are minors and need protection from decisions which might harm them in the future. There are reasons these legal statuses are in place. You would not allow a minor to sign a legally binding contract but you would allow them to terminate the life of another human being, without being fully developed psychologically to make sure that decision is something they will not regret or become depressed about.

And since we’re on the subject of minors and their right to their own bodies – why not draw more attention to child brides in the Islamic world, female genital mutilation and teens being  raped by their “husbands” and forced to give birth naturally at a young age, which can cause irreparable damage?

Secondly, they mention the “scare tactics” through crisis pregnancy centres. These centres save lives day in and day out, not only by talking women out of abortions but by pointing them towards relevant resources which actually get them through the difficult times. They do not hide the fact that nothing is irreversible in this world except death. You can never bring back the dead, no matter how much you wish you could. Financial situations can be changed, studies can be paused and resumed. Relationships needn’t be terminated forever because of a disagreement over having or not having a child. And if they are, there are plenty more fish in the sea.

However, this is not the worst of it. The mask falls off completely in the following paragraphs.

4. Who Cares What the Number Is, Anyway?

Why is the number of women who are having abortions really the issue?

And is reducing or altogether stopping the rate of abortion something we really want? Abortions have been happening since the beginning of time, when women used herbs and other methods to self-induce abortions.

Abortions will never not happen – they always have, and they always will.

The difference we are fighting for is how they happen: in back alleys or in clinics? The difference we are fighting for is who can get them: wealthy women who can afford to get past the financial barriers put in place or everyone?

Women are not a statistic. We need to stop focusing on the number of abortions and the“making it rare” concept as if that really says anything.

Women (as well as trans men and genderqueer people) will continue to have abortions, and the number doesn’t matter. What matters is that those who need abortions can get them.

That was Margaret Sanger’s plan as well. Keep the masses in perpetual poverty and get them to kill their offspring, to stop polluting the gene pool with stupidity. That’s the whole idea behind your wonderful Planned Parenthood.

Why care about the numbers? Because there are enough people dying needlessly in this world, through war, starvation, violence and poverty. There is enough violence in this world to encourage people being ripped apart or burned to death in their mother’s bodies. Because there is enough trauma going around to encourage women to commit unchangeable acts, which they might later regret to no avail. Real trauma, that is – as opposed to reading “triggering” material in a classroom.

Because mass death is nothing to be celebrated or ignored.

TRAP laws, the laws that have been put in place to unfairly target and regulate abortion clinics to the point of causing many of them to close, was supposedly about “keeping people safe,”just as mandatory counseling and ultrasounds laws are supposedly about “keeping us informed.”

Stop with the paternalism already. These laws aren’t about protecting people. They’re about hurting them.

Right. Laws about information, sanitation and stopping body trafficking. Laws about protecting minors from being abused and exploited. Laws about not finishing off babies that are already born alive, as they were supposed to in the first place. The link the author provides only mentions rules which seek to ensure that the people performing abortions are certified doctors with a certain standing in the medical community – which would reduce back alley practices, as a human being with a functioning brain can quickly realise. The horror stories in the US are numerous. You can see many of them here, as well as success stories of babies who were saved from abortion  (the link is not showing properly, the letters are the same colour as the background for some reason, but if you click below you’ll find it, and if not the site is called Priests For Life. There must be a technical issue; I cannot get this link to be properly visible:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/

Although I am not a Christian anymore, I have full respect for what they have done and continue to do, as it genuinely saves lives. Father Pavone has done a really great job in revitalising the pro-life movement, through compelling argumentation and direct action towards saving people from being killed.

There are some Westboro-style characters out there, that’s true, picketing and rambling on about sin and the pit of fire in hell in front of abortion clinics. They are only bound to anger people and make them more determined in their thinking. Their only impact can be negative as they spread threats and condemnation instead of hope and alternatives.

But there are also very compassionate and dedicated folks who stand outside these clinics, provide ultrasounds in mobile vans, as well as heartfelt advice – and they deserve all the respect in the world. Because it takes strength of character for someone who realises what the taking of a life is to be in front of a place of such trauma and suffering (which is comparable to an execution wall, except worse), keep their composure and manage to reduce the number of those who suffer by convincing them to rethink. To anyone who is even slightly spiritual it seems unbearable to stand outside a place where you know people are being killed in real time. I personally don’t think I would have the strength to do that.

I don’t even care which God or force of this universe they are praying to – if they do so with the strong, sincere hope that lives will be saved. And if the power of their thought and energy, as well as their action, is enough to change the course of things, it truly is a miracle. With the risk of sounding tacky, it is a small victory for humanity – a victory nonetheless.

So the next time that you see someone at a pro-choice rally with a  “Keep Abortion Safe, Legal, and Rare” sign or hear someone say it, consider starting a dialogue with them.

Talk about how the logic behind that sentiment serves to hurt the abortion movement by further stigmatizing abortion and setting us up for even more aggressive and regulatory anti-abortion laws that make accessing abortion ever more difficult for everyone.

Right, because that’s what feminists seem to idolise.

More death.

Not education, not prevention, not responsible thinking. Just more death.

As far as I know, the western world is not some huge death-worshipping cult. Not consciously, anyway. But these feminists are continually pushing the idea that it should be embraced and promoted.

 

 

New article on Psychopath Free: “What if they’re not a sociopath?”

This post is in response to this new PF article, based on the idea that healing from a hurtful relationship is all that matters, combined with dealing with your own demons – which would normally be true, except for the situations detailed below. Here is the conclusion of the article:

The question “What if they’re not really a sociopath?” loses all of its significance when we come to love ourselves regardless of the answer.

To start with, the article conveys a warm, fluffy and appeasing feeling, detailing doubts which might arise and nuancing an individual’s response to a failed relationship – an introspection which would undoubtedly be positive … were the website not called Psychopath Free, claiming to teach people how to identify  and deal with monsters. Not people who at one point in time displayed toxic behaviours. Soulless, irredeemable monsters.

It matters when you have publicly labelled said person a sociopath

This label is far from a private matter, at one’s discretion to keep or discard, when it was turned into a public accusation, ranging from a circle of friends to the presumed sociopath’s own family. Where exactly does the hipsterism fit in once you’ve damaged that person’s life?

Of course, one might argue that they’ve also damaged yours in ways which are difficult to repair. But still, does that absolve someone of the wrongdoing of tarnishing another’s reputation?

When you broke up with a significant other specifically because you applied this label

Which I’m sure has been the case on PF time and time again – confused people coming across the “life-saving” information which raises their adrenaline, feeling self-righteous beyond the shadow of doubt and making crucial decisions based on it.

The sheer thought that a loved one is impossible to deal with by default has been breaking marriages and relationships apart. At times, had it not been for this black and white thinking, many people would’ve surely reconsidered.

While I believe that education about narcissism and sociopathy are essential to healing and sanity restoration (especially in the early stages as we break the chemical bond and learn to go No Contact), I think there is something very powerful about eventually releasing this duality.

That’s just it – they are essential to those who are genuinely involved with these types, not to the rest, who might think they are in a moment of desolation, to later brood over their assessment and find it impulsive and inaccurate. People can heal from heartache without resorting to this demonisation, which is anything but sanity when untrue.

He is basically saying that this “education”, as well as going no contact, is essential even to those who later question their judgement. In the vein of act now, think later.

With the risk of emphasising this for the hundredth time: even when a lot of heartache was involved, on one or both sides, it doesn’t mean one has to give up on the relationship, as if this were the only beneficial route. Assuming that ending it was for the best regardless, even if the label is later questioned, and that reading about disordered people was just a prop towards the “liberating” break-up even when said person was not necessarily disordered, is absolutely ridiculous.

When you claim to be an expert on sociopathy and coach others on the subject

Basing your entire expertise on your experience, “educating” others with fanatical dedication, influencing their lives (sometimes irreversibly) and suddenly turning around to say that it doesn’t really matter if your judgement was correct regarding said experience just doesn’t fly.

It is basically stating that your cut-in-stone perspective on human interaction just might be based on a murky, questionable situation, in which you just might’ve been wrong. In this case, the smallest of doubts matters a great deal. Because you might’ve – just might’ve – fed lorry loads of horse manure to all the people who regarded your approach as the absolute truth.

One of the most common questions asked during recovery is: “Was he/she really a sociopath?” Survivors ask this question over and over again, because for most of us, the alternative is the sociopath’s reality: “You are crazy, jealous, sensitive, paranoid, unattractive, unwanted.” And so we oscillate back and forth between these two realities: bad other, or bad self.

This binary excludes the middle ground – actual rationality and sanity, which admits the possibility of both individuals being wrong at the same time, to various degrees. One for saying hurtful things and the second  for taking them as the absolute reality of the other’s thinking, prompting them to label the other as a merciless sociopath.

There is no need for this radicalism, as if one were completely incapable of analysing matters beyond “I was right” versus “this person was right”.

This is not a healthy way to look at life and people who tend to think in black and white should not be teaching others how to handle their problems.

 

The post is followed by quite a few which are glorifying an empath’s ability to love, regardless of their presumed sociopath’s behaviour. I know this will sound cruel on my part, but in this context it seems like a self-gratifying exercise which does not address the real question – what if the people they labelled as such were not actually sociopaths?

This article not only implies but states it is beyond the issue for anyone “recovering” from a hurtful relationship. Is it really though? Is loving yourself enough to obliterate any damage you might’ve done to someone and any afterthoughts about what might’ve been in the absence of this label? And is loving yourself enough to give you confidence to keep “spreading the word” about disordered people, even in the absence of certainty that you have even met one? And regardless of the damage you might do to others who believe you know what you’re preaching?

The answer is logical.

Microagressions: “Intention Is Irrelevant”

Remember the days when even proper bad behaviour could be excused by simply saying one meant no offence? Well, those days are long buried under the rubble of what used to be rational thinking. Hunting on barren ground for victimless crimes has turned into a hobby for some people.

Microaggressions are a great example of that.

According to this article, brought to you by the fountain of wisdom that is intersectional feminism, intention is completely irrelevant when microaggressions are perceived.

It’s important for us to remember that just because a perpetrator of racism is clueless (or in denial) about the impact of their words doesn’t mean that their actions were any less violent or that the impact of that violence is changed.

Which basically means that anything anyone perceives as an insult or a threat must be real. For instance, if I suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and thought the devil lived in my freezer, the sheer emotional impact would be enough to give validity to the whole situation. It also means that whoever stands accused of such perceived crimes is guilty by default; there is no chance in hell the “victim” might be overreacting.

Furthermore, we learn why an unwitting “perpetrator of racism” must be dealt with promptly:

Whatever the reason, it amounts to letting racism off the hook. When we allow these small incidences to keep happening, we are allowing racism, in general, to remain a part of our culture. (…) If we only focus on intention, we continue to center and prioritize the perpetrator. And let’s face it: The perpetrator is always a more privileged person who is used to getting their opinions and feelings validated.

Hence, if you are accused – and by default guilty – of a microaggression, you might as well start a fund for the Ku Klux Klan; you are responsible for the propagation of racist attitudes in your community (and in general). Here’s how a couple of tactless words can make a public enemy out of you, from one moment to the next. In any such circumstances, regardless of their particularities, you must be wrong, since you are a privileged piece of shit anyway.

But if ever we hope to truly put an end to racism (or any other injustice for that matter), we, as people who encounter so much marginalization, must also validate our own feelings and opinions. We re-center our attention to our needs and experiences by focusing on impact, not intent.

Which would give a free pass to every whiny, narcissistic, self-obsessed prick to tax others on their words at any given time. As mentioned above, an individual’s perspective might be distorted by psychological or emotional problems; perching them on a throne from where they can condemn others with impunity, based on their feelings alone, is not the brightest idea. Since the word “perpetrator” is used several times in the article to refer to people who are ingenuous of any wrongdoing, I reserve the right to refer to such accusers as hysterical narcs.

Moving on to the three types of microaggressions, detailed below.

Microassaults, the most conscious and intentional form of microaggressions,  best resemble what we are accustomed to thinking of as “old-fashioned” racism.

Some common examples are using racial epithets (or abusive, derogatory language or names), displaying confederate flags or swastikas, mocking another language, telling racist jokes, and serving White customers first.

Mocking another language? As in putting on a fake accent or imitating someone for a laugh? Will ten-year-olds be subject to this accusation as well? About serving white customers first – I’d be really amazed if the author could point to even one such situation in recent decades, in first world countries. And yet, it’s listed here as if it were a frequent occurrence.

Microinsults communicate rudeness and insensitivity towards someone based on their racial identity or heritage. These acts take away a person’s dignity or sense of self-worth, but they do so indirectly. Some microinsults can seem like compliments to the person saying them. (…)

And even more examples (because racism is so frustratingly relentless) are a White person crossing to the other side of the street at the approach of a Black or Latino man, or a storeowner carefully watching or following a customer of color.

I’d say that is a lot more insulting than someone mocking your language, but that’s just me. The question is whether it actually happens, how often it happens and if the people perceiving this might be misinterpreting the situation (how in the world can you tell why a complete stranger crosses the road?).

Microinvalidations exclude or negate the experiences, feelings, and experiential reality of a POC.

A common microinvalidation is the notion of “color blindness” or the assertion that we now live in “post-racial” times. It is also invalidating to downplay occurrences of racism, or to tell a POC, “Stop being so sensitive” or “Not everything’s about race!”

These phrases, perhaps meant to smooth over the perpetrators discomfort of the situation, completely dismiss the racialized experiences of POC.

Hence, reason is now equated with the invalidation of another person’s experience. There is no way under the blue sky that this person might be exaggerating; it’s unconscionable. To quote the PF chief admin, “your feelings are absolutes”.

As POC, we are often silenced or stunned by microaggressions. But just as there are positive ways to deal with stress, there are empowering ways to address microaggressions.

Never mind that the author and afferent clique not only have every opportunity to express their views, but actually enjoy a large platform and others bend over backwards to avoid tripping their wires.

Had enough? No?

Here’s another article on how to be moderate in using the “right pronouns” for people who demand them, as they are even offended by the uncomfortable feeling of having to make a big deal about you using them. The point of it is to not expect a positive reaction (as if someone necessarily did when engaging in this futility, as opposed to merely trying to avoid the anger of the person in need of special words). At the same time, don’t you dare not use them!

Some people make a big deal about gender pronouns – and it’s true that it’s important to get them right! But once you know how it actually feels for someone when you get their pronouns right, you’ll realize there’s no one “right” way to respond. Check it out.

So briefly, if they feel you’re making a big deal (in terms of deserving recognition) out of their utterly uncomfortable demand to mutilate your language with word such as “ze”, they are also entitled to be offended or at least put off by that.

Just make sure you’re not trying too hard to be an “ally”. As there truly is no right way to do it.

Animal Rights Fanatics Seem To Be Sociopathic

(I know I’m using very strong language here but I’m fed up with this trend of getting thousands of coffee break activists to harass a stranger – in this case, half a million of them, including celebrities with a large platform, whom I lost all respect for after they chose to participate in this mass bullying. This type of targeting, virtually overnight, can very well lead some people to suicide.)

At the moment, the US is in uproar about an incident involving a gorilla being shot at a zoo, after a child fell into its enclosure and was dragged by it through the water, being in extreme danger the whole time. Regardless of the intentions said gorilla had, it was a very strong, unpredictable animal, capable of killing or seriously injuring the child. The zoo’s management explained very logically and people with a long expertise in the behaviour of these animals backed up the decision that had to be made instantly. A sad decision, but unavoidable.

As expected, fanatics worked themselves into a frenzy and have now started a petition for the child’s family to be investigated, out of feigned concern for his safety at home. They want the state to get involved and hold the parents accountable. For what it’s worth, it was an accident, FFS – no one can determine a single aspect of that child’s life based on that. He sneaked away and fell. It is very clear to anyone with two functioning neurons that this lot is not concerned with the child’s life – and wasn’t to begin with. They want revenge in the form of human suffering.

The unadulterated pieces of scum behind this petition will not rest until they  damage lives; they want their witch hunt, their pound of flesh to place on the altar of a dead animal. You see, instead of the barbarism of sacrificing animals to God, as in Biblical times, we, the progressive lot, are now idolising carcasses and sacrificing people to them. We dedicate memorials and art pieces to creatures which would literally urinate on them (that would be incredibly funny to watch).

The sanctimoniousness, the hysteria is only in these people’s heads; it’s self-congratulatory and nothing more.

The number of people signing this, some of them probably without much thought, in order to align themselves with the latest trend on social media, is indeed alarming. The text you can see there was much briefer originally and has now been edited in order to pretend they are not encouraging the hoards to harass that family – although said harassment did take place, at the prompting of these idiots. Such hypocrisy is vomit inducing; they are taking legal precautions now, whilst to start with they encouraged a mob outrage.

I read the petition as they first wrote it, and it can still be seen below the diluted, half-assed disclaimer that it only seeks to help – including the parents, to make sure they have access to resources and support in their family life. Its only – unveiled – goal initially was revenge and it was going for them like a bulldog in attack mode. That cannot be taken back, whatever sweetened variation of it they present now. It’s ludicrous to claim good intentions towards people you caused to be harassed and threatened with murder.

I’m not saying the gorilla’s death is not regrettable – but FFS, have some common sense. Who are they doing all this for? Is the gorilla watching from gorilla heaven? Is there any point? How well did they know this animal, as to be heartbroken by its death?

This is solely a manifestation of some people’s festering hatred of their own species, of their hysteria and desire to persecute others. It is reminiscent of medieval or political trials, where little logic or compassion was employed and the only standard to judge others by was the fanatical dedication to a cause, be it religion, fascism or communism.

 

Far from disliking animals and from rejecting the hypothesis that they are spiritual in some form, I can’t help noticing the current trend of animal worship and loathing of humans, common not only to “save the planet from us” fanatics but to people from all walks of life. Somehow, instead of rejecting the system we live under, they have started rejecting human nature altogether, although they know that they themselves are not monsters. Over the last few years this type of rhetoric has become very tiresome, if not worrying.

There is an actual debate whether human lives matter more than animal lives.

Here’s my take on some of the memes encountered out there.

Animals don’t lie. Because they can’t talk. Honesty is not something you value very much in your fellow humans, let’s face it.

Animals don’t disappoint you. Except sometimes, when they behave so much like animals (aggressively) that you have to neuter them or put them down mercifully, for not adapting to the rigours of human society.

Animals don’t tear your heart to bits. They might tear off smaller parts though, depending on their strength and their mood that moment. After all, they are unpredictable, as well as we claim to understand them. Certain dog breeds are famous for attacking their owners out of the blue, after spending a few happy years inside their homes.

Animals understand you better than humans. They listen to you. No, fuckwit. They just stand there and gawk at you because you’ve probably locked the door, despite the fact that they can’t bear your winging voice. They have a vested interest in remaining there; they depend on you for sustenance. And more than likely, they can’t twig 90% of what you’re saying anyway.

The animals these fuckwits (I’m only referring to those who claim animals should be prioritised over people) enjoy the company of so much have been domesticated by their fellow humans for hundreds or thousands of years. That is how they warmed up to humans in the first place and imitate human behaviour to some extent.

Try finding that connection with feral animals in the jungle, untouched by morally corrupt human hands. Good luck.

Even the animals which are uncommonly held as pets (reptiles, spiders etc) are also in the homes of these fuckwits because they’ve been studied by humans and declared safe to have around. You wouldn’t just grab one from the wild and put it next to your pillow.

The very fact that the fuckwits can have pets is a result of others having tried it before, repeatedly, since the beginnings of civilisation. So give me a break. Please.

May I also add that the fuckwits proliferate on how awful and stupid people are on their laptops or phones, which humans invented, from the comfort of their homes, which humans built.

Later edit

Some of the few articles calling this internet mob justice phenomenon for what it is are heavily trolled – they simply could not settle for less; every dissenting voice has to be stifled.

It turns out they flooded the mother’s workplace with threats and demands and might stage a protest outside. They want her out of work as well. And all this, remember – because they are so worried about the welfare of her child.

There is no end in sight to this just now (except to this so-called civilised society which is anything but). People have become cannibals. Or some, I should say.

Yet another edit

Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the petitioning hobbyist who started the witch hunt did not get her pound of flesh.

Those who carried out the investigation had more brains and decency than the frothing hordes and no human lives or jobs were lost.

The hordes had to pack the popcorn and go home; there was no hanging to watch.

 

 

Stranger Shaming – The Next Level Of Social Degradation

Recently brought to public attention by the internet phenomenon known as Gamer Gate, doxxing (quite popular among SJWs in general) is seen by many as vile, unnecessary and the product of  inflated egos. Sending posses, either virtual or in real life, to harass people and many times get them fired, is fanatical in the eyes of anyone with a shred of respect for freedom of thought. Or for freedom as a concept, why not.

The only thing that can be said about engaging with these types is precisely that; engaging – one’s choice to interact with them, the risk taken while knowing (or suspecting) their rapaciousness.

The same cannot be said about the people who are randomly targeted simply for existing, without having initiated any contact with those who point the finger of scorn at them. Note: I am not referring to activists and people who make their opinions public in general, attracting debates and rebuttals. Those are ideological in nature and needn’t become too personal (or personal at all). And in case someone might accuse me of doing the same with PF, I must stress any observations I’ve made were not meant as a personal attack; these people form an ideological group seeking to proselitise.

This grotesque caricature of  Police Academy 4, “Citizens on patrol”, is very worrying indeed.

Stranger shaming refers to the public targeting of someone’s life choices or habits, flagged by a feature the “hunter” is looking for in a crowd or on social media. It usually consists of being photographed, paparazzi-style, and displayed on dedicated websites for all to see, along with poisonous comments – just for being in the bastard’s line of sight at the wrong time. The target, implicitly, does not seek out this attention and is often not aware of what is happening, until they find their image (and perhaps even some details) online.

Apparently, this trend was started by the famous “anti man-spreading” campaigners, who freely took photos of blokes sitting on trains or buses, minding their own business, in order to prove that their claim was legitimate. The revenge came in the form of a Facebook page showing women who eat on the tube, in unflattering images and with even more unflattering comments. This was a pointless thing to do for two reasons.

First, it picked on random – as in innocent – people, not on the ones who had engaged in the man-spreading ridiculousness (perhaps that would’ve been classed as stalking). Those who put the page together had no consideration for that fact and for doing the exact same thing those women had done, without even affecting them. Through that, they were indeed being sexist, taking their revenge on women in general. Secondly, there was a pointless backlash to that as well – a day of ostentatious eating on the tube, organised by some women. There’s nothing to suggest a connection between the people being stranger-shamed in any of these phases of the conflict; each group lashed out, in turn, at complete strangers, thus propagating this phenomenon.

As far as I see it, there are three possible explanations for it.

Infantile behaviour. Those who invented the gadgets we use daily gave a great gift to the world. But cameras, akin to other items such as guns and weed, can be dangerous when left in the hands of every idiot. Stranger-shaming can be perceived as flipping the bird to a certain category, though the implications can be more serious, depending on the trait one picks on. Infantile individuals, who laugh at banalities, such as someone’s fly being open by mistake or someone tripping in the street, think just about anything is worth pointing out. They think it’s tongue-in-cheek and does not cause real harm.Surprising funny blunders out there can be great if no one is harmed – take engrish.com for example. But when you make it personal, specifically targeting an individual and pointing the finger, that is needlessly hurtful.

The disappearance of the concept of privacy. Unlike those who laugh at small accidents, but not maliciously, gawking types (some of them pathological gossips) seem to think they are entitled to see and judge the lives of others through a magnifying glass. I’ve no doubt some do it to escape their own frustrations or conceal their true inclinations (holier-than-thou types often harbour deeply repressed aspects). In their quest to prove their superiority, they cannibalise any available target by virtue signalling. “It’s none of my business” does not reside in their vocabulary. It is no surprise therefore that they approach every new ability to snoop and immortalise trivialities as a good thing.

Social engineering at its best. An intelligent, decent person is rightfully worried when the general acrimony gets to the level of people being ready to attack anyone around them, albeit not physically, just for a mild disapproval. When ordinary citizens become data gatherers, informants on others, for little to no reason. This is the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, of having to look over your shoulder constantly to check who is watching and listening. It’s no wonder that social anxiety is growing and some people are simply unwilling to leave their homes except for strict necessity, while being bombarded with images of others being publicly embarrassed. This truly looks like a technique to make people fear each other and the places they live in or travel to.

Needless to say, not all self-labelled humorous material is for humour’s sake. Stranger shaming can involve anything from poor manners, whether accidental or habitual, to personal life choices, which are nobody’s business. These range from wearing leather, using too much electricity, not reusing reusable items and anything like that, to the way you bring your kids up (gender-designed toys only, no TV, certain restrictions or permission others do not agree with). Here’s where social media comes in. Those who are so quick to share details regarding their private lives should be aware of these vultures seeking to put others on “disgrace lists” for not fitting into their hallucinogenic-tinted utopias.

More and more, we are seeing a push towards standardisation in every aspect of life, where diversity, though so trumpeted nowadays, becomes intolerable. In their own heads, people run themselves through the mincer of public opinion before they dare to open their mouths. Just anything can cause outrage to some closeted fanatic, who becomes flushed with anger at the slightest “trigger”.

We might see a push-back from the slowly cooked communal frog, or we might not. Some of us are more hopeful than others.

I will edit sometime to add relevant examples.

Advocating Deception And False Consent

Far from trying to sound flustered about matters which don’t concern me, Daily Mail style, I positively cannot believe some of the stuff I’ve read on this subject lately; it’s beyond cringe-worthy in terms of entitlement. It’s actually disregarding the human rights of everyone who is not transgender (the vast majority of the global population). Note: when using umbrella terms such as “they”, I’m referring to the activists promoting these ideas, not to every single trans person, as that would not make sense.

It’s no secret that the leftist propaganda machine has long drifted off into la la land (never to return, probably). However, one would think they’d take things a bit slower when trying to defy the core principles which still keep this world functioning, for better or worse. Below are some ideas I’ve come across online; some are direct quotes from blogs, forums etc, which could not be rephrased in a more compelling way.

“…if I was incorrectly assigned male at birth…” (source)

Whereas psychiatry, which by no means has the whole understanding of human nature, cannot agree on what causes this (though gender dysphoria IS still in the DSM), it is a matter of wishes and feelings versus biological reality. It’s fair enough to respect someone’s feelings regarding their own body; it’s fair enough trying to be sympathetic.

But let’s not, FFS,  go so far as to “credit”  doctors with having made a mistake by assigning the wrong gender at birth, according to a baby’s physical traits. It’s not like they do it arbitrarily. That is such a deluded way to refer to this. Some of these people actually want a gender-less society, which would presumably include not assigning a gender a birth for fear of being wrong.

If you want to read some mind-bending rationales, here’s a good example. This article claims that sex – not even gender – is now a social construct.  That male and female are two notions based on loose statistics. Just because boobs or body hair are more prevalent in one segment of the population rather than the other (more prevalent, yes), that is not reason enough to put the human race into two boxes. That if the distinction is based on fertility (eggs or sperm), then children are not male or female, as they don’t produce any. That a woman who has had a hysterectomy  is comparable to a trans woman who lacks a uterus by design.  And so on.

It makes sense for this ideology to attack the concept of a biological sex altogether. Gender has already been embellished with about twenty variations. The goal is to have the scientific perspective obliterated. The author of the piece lists four reasons why society still uses (and thinks in terms of) male and female. Two of them have to do with oppressing trans people. I’m not sure that was in the mind of those who first documented this differentiation in the first place. Or anyone since.

All the pseudo-science, through which exceptions are meant to invalidate universal biological facts, is nauseating. Why is it that as soon as a fringe phenomenon passes into the mainstream, it seeks to spread until it becomes the norm? Don’t get me wrong; I don’t believe in almost any criteria for respectability (they change constantly), but I can’t help but see how the oppressed become oppressors in their own right, or at least seek to dominate, to have the world reorganised according to their vision, at the first whiff of power.

“If a partner has issues, it is THEIR responsibility to ask questions, not mine to disclose.” (source)

Seriously? You expect people to go around asking others whether they’re trans? At what point during a night out does this question fit in? And what would the excuse be? Can you imagine the partner’s reaction after being prompted to think he/she might look like the opposite sex? This is simply ridiculous. Just like it’s ridiculous to say that regarding other details someone could not simply imagine. Here are some examples:

  • Actually, I have Chlamydia.
  • When I told you I was eighteen, I lied. I’m actually fifteen.
  • The truth is I’m the cousin you never met. But I find you very attractive.
  • The reason I chose to stay indoors was that I’m running from  the police; I’m on a wanted list.
  • Well, I’m in the middle of a divorce, so if you get any strange phone calls, just hang up; my ex is a bit of a stalker.

The point is very clear; there are things one is morally obligated to tell a prospective partner, as there is a very high chance of them withdrawing consent for sexual intimacy. A “detail” such as age, marital status or legal conundrum, which might drag that person into a mess, might just make them think twice. So would knowing that they were engaging in an unwanted sex act.

“Why are trans people subjected to this? Should blacks be subjected to this? Forced to disclose even if they look white? Should Jews be forced to tell a sex partner they are Jewish? Do these questions sound absurd yet?” (same source)

They certainly do sound absurd, for the aberration of mixing in aspects which are likely to have no bearing over someone’s decision, not in terms of physical intimacy anyway.

There is a lot of talk about consent nowadays, with feminists trying their best (which isn’t much) to make it the norm for so many questionable situations to be considered rape. Yet how can someone give informed consent in this situation? Though if you ask me, the physical difference would be obvious, but who knows.

Consent is all about trust and safety. Apparently, the lack of willingness to inform a partner about being trans is also about that, or the lack thereof. Which begs the question – what are you doing in bed with someone you don’t trust not to beat you up or murder you?

“I know I’m a little late to this but there is a profound difference between “I’m just not attracted to her” and “While I otherwise would be attracted to her, I have such problems with her being trans all those feelings I felt about her have magically disappeared”. The first is not prejudice at all, the second which is all to real is undeniably a sociopolitical issue. Because if there is a light switch that suddenly turns off in your head after being attracted or smitten with a person all because of a little bit of information, it is undeniably a hang up”. (source)

This was in response to someone identifying as a lesbian and stating the obvious – that sexual orientation is not a choice and a sociopolitical issue. By asking people to disregard one’s past as the opposite sex, they are demanding that they go against their own orientation. Deciding not to have sex with someone should never be questioned by others.

To date, trans people, in their LGBT activism, have upheld this point of view. Yet they would now gladly argue that people should be deceived into having sex when they would not normally choose to do so. At the moment, there seems to be a slight rupture in the community.  What they’re asking for is that  those who are”cis” fix a “hang up” which is “all in the mind.”

This was a predictable push towards the advancement of their status, as trans people put themselves in one of the most disadvantaged positions in terms of finding a partner. Outside the circle of those who prefer relationships with them specifically, I suspect that others are, overwhelmingly, not that way inclined, be they straight or gay.

While it’s no surprise that they should come after heterosexuals with all sorts of accusations and demands, it’s still strange  for them to target gays and lesbians, after demonstrating jointly for decades for individual affirmation. There is no moral obligation to go against one’s natural inclinations in this context.It is now a “prejudice of staggering magnitude” for a person to expect honesty.

“Try it; you might like it; it could be the best you’ve ever had” (source)

Imagine if someone told a gay person that maybe heterosexual sex would be the best experience ever, so why not consider it and try it, in spite of the squeamishness? Would that suggestion be socially acceptable nowadays? I think not.

But this is the advice given to someone (and I bet more people in the same dilemma) who had sexual experiences with a partner to later find out the partner was trans, at which point the attraction dissipated. The advice is to go all the way and see if they like it after all, as if they didn’t already know.

The comments are very ironic as the author gets to experience a return of his own attitude towards those with a different opinion – immediate, vitriolic, absolute hatred from some trans people, down to the (by now common) kill yourself. All for saying a trans man should have disclosed before actual physical intimacy, which can doubtlessly leave their partner feeling violated for a long time.

“Unless you have had a trans lover or are trans yourself I don’t think you have any right to offer an opinion as an individual of experience which is the point of your blog yes ? In my experience an ally is some one who will promote the belief of others with “quotes” not to translate them with there own words.” (same source)

There you have it; you cannot express an opinion regarding those who lie and obtain consent on a false premise, committing something that in some countries is considered rape, unless you have direct experience yourself (unless you are biased).

Are false identities acceptable?

One might understand why a person would just say they’ve taken a long trip to Australia after spending a few years in jail for theft. But that refers to a limited period of time and a mistake made at one point in time. Rewriting one’s story as the opposite sex basically means constructing a false identity. Whenever a prospective partner comes into view, lies will unavoidably be told. People are more than their genitals; they have an entire history behind them. It’s fair and normal for that history to matter.

“…I’m with Kinsey and JRW here, we don’t need trans disclosure we need bigot disclosure.”

This is a very common one, actually. We need bigot disclosure. People should disclose their bigotry instead of others disclosing their trans status. Do I need to comment on this? Do I really?

Its no different than “religion, political affiliation, ethnic heritage, survivor status, occupation and work history, past abortions, hobbies, and food allergies.” (source)

No comment needed!

Bottom line – there is no compromise when it comes to respecting people’s autonomy when it comes to sexual preferences. No one should be tricked into sex acts they will later regret and find degrading. One cannot discuss the inviolability of their body, person and choices, without taking into account the same for their partner.

 

Psychopath Free And The Cringe Factor

Recently, an excerpt from Psychopath Free was added to its Amazon page (quotes are reproduced here from the website, for non-commercial educational purposes, thus qualifying as fair use). Whilst the entire text screams improvisation and if one properly analyses it they can be sure to find more than a dozen logical errors, the worst parts lie below.

To use their terminology of choice, I might as well class this as triggering to former members of the forum, in good humour of course.

poltergeist

As you frantically share your story, you latch on to the quickest and most sympathetic ear—anyone who claims to understand you. The problem is, these people do not always have your best interests at heart.

Those willing to listen to your psychopathic story for hours on end are, unfortunately, not likely to be people who are truly invested in your recovery. They are most likely “vultures.”

Vultures often seem exceptionally kind and warm at first. They want to fix you and absorb your problems. They are fascinated by your struggles. But sooner or later, you will find yourself lost in another nightmare. They begin drowning you in unsolicited advice. They need constant praise and attention. You are never allowed to disagree with them. They feed off drama and an insatiable need to be appreciated by others. (…)

They do not want you to seek help from anyone except them.

Whether these people are pathological or not, you don’t need this toxic garbage after what you’ve been through. (………)

But real friends won’t be acting as your therapist, and they definitely won’t be rambling on about their ability to empathize and care. Their actions should speak louder than their words.

It takes a long time to start building healthier relationships. It takes breaking old habits, forming new ones, developing your intuition, and finally coming to understand what it is that you want from this world.

So be on the lookout for vultures. In the writing world, there’s a universal rule called “show—don’t tell.” This rule also applies to people. If you encounter someone who’s constantly telling you who they are, how much they want to help you, how they will make things right for you, take a step back and look at their actual behavior. Manipulative people are always “telling” because they have nothing good to show. Their inappropriate and dishonest actions never actually match up with their promising words, causing an overwhelming cognitive dissonance in the people who trust them.

You will find that decent, humble human beings aren’t trying to tell you who they are and what they can do for you. They simply show it through consistent love and kindness. You never need to question them, because their intentions are always pure. Vultures, on the other hand, are really acting out of self-interest; they want to be praised and adored. In an argument, a “teller” will frequently remind you of how well they treat you, even after blatantly hurting you. A “show-er” will simply share their point of view without trying to twist the conversation in their favor. Avoid those who tell you how nice they are, how generous they are, how successful they are, how honest they are, and how important they are. Instead, search for the quiet ones who show these qualities every day through their actions.

Truly cringe-worthy.

No explanation is needed for those who have been given the PF treatment and know what really goes on there, openly and behind the scenes.

When referring to “vultures”, he is describing the behaviour of the Psychopath Free team to a tee.  Not only do they claim to empathise with vulnerable people they couldn’t care less about (as shown on countless occasions); they behave as if those strangers owed them for their brainwashing support; they constantly display controlling, egomaniacal and patronising tendencies.

Whilst behaving in that fashion towards one individual is bad enough, they do so to thousands of people, processing members more diligently than fast food chains process battery farm chickens.

I would strongly urge all survivors to avoid seeking out new friendships and relationships for at least a few months. You must get to the point where you no longer need—or want—to talk about your abuser anymore.

When you do need help, stick to professional therapy or recovery communities and services. These people know what you’ve been through, and you’re going to find that all of them are willing to help—with no strings attached.

I understand the temptation to go out and meet new people. You’re looking to start rebuilding your life. You want to surround yourself with kinder and more genuine friends.

Let me get this straight.

He argues there is a fundamental difference between finding new friends in real life and confiding in strangers on-line, which is what people do in these so-called recovery communities. He places these groups on par with seeing an actual therapist. Not that a therapist is necessarily able to help a hurting soul; regardless, they are guaranteed to be more mindful of their behaviour, as to not leave that person in a worse condition than their original one. They are guaranteed to have more ethics than those who risk nothing when bullying or discarding a vulnerable person on the internet.

No strings attached is a funny one. Let’s see if these qualify as “strings”, aka, in my understanding, issues the group can use in order to manipulate someone into obedience.

  • Tracking members on-line as well as in real life, if they see fit, violating their privacy.
  • Bullying and shaming members to influence their decisions in real life, as opposed to merely providing information.
  • Mandating that in order to participate in simple discussions one has to break all contact with the person who has (presumably) been abusing them, although that rule is not specified when registering.
  • Insisting that members give accurate information regarding their relationships and seeing prospective lies or omissions (again, about the private lives of others) as “security threats” to the forum, posed by “imposters”.
  • Labelling others with variations of ASPD, though they usually skip that part and call them psychopaths directly, to refute their arguments.
  • Mocking members’ sensitive stories in kangaroo courts, using vile language, after having expressed “sincere” empathy for them.

Make no mistake; these people are dangerous.

You register under the impression of posting anonymously, only disclosing what you see fit and being able to leave whenever, which is when a normal forum admin or moderator would cease all interaction with you. That was the whole point of being able to open up on the internet.

If you lived outside the US, were temporarily part of a group like PF, and one day posted about feeling extremely low – as people sometimes do in order to blow off steam – you would think that merely closing the window in your browser was the end of it. Well, guess again. They once tracked down a member from a different country and alerted the police regarding a suicide related post, causing substantial trouble in her life and custody case.

Imagine bringing that on yourself just by clicking “post” on a foreign internet forum. Imagine the absurdity.

So when you feel those things after a relationship, does it really matter if your ex was a psychopath, a sociopath, a narcissist, or a garden-variety jerk? The label doesn’t make your feelings any more or less valid. Your feelings are absolutes. They will endure, no matter which word you settle upon.

YES, it does matter.

Psychopathy is a personality disorder. Being a jerk is a behavioural problem, which needn’t be permanent or affect all sides of an individual’s life. It matters even more in terms of discussing your story on forums based on psychopathy, where the constant use of the word psychopath is encouraged.

There I was thinking the whole “identify the psycho” technique was meant to be accurate; that it was crucial for a “survivor” to apply it correctly. Now we see that the label is just fluff and it’s OK to confuse someone who is a bit of a dick with a deranged, dangerous individual. Pick whatever you want; it’s all the same.

And it certainly matters when you place the word “psychopath” on the cover of your book and market it as such, although it now appears it addresses a much wider audience, some cases having nothing to do with psychopathy whatsoever.

And if you are anything like me, we can agree on this simple truth: good people make you feel good and bad people make you feel bad.

Yup. Never heard that one before. Certainly not in George Orwell’s  Animal Farm, when the sheep would go ‘‘Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad!” 

This oversimplification is baffling, really.

The fact that the book mentions it doesn’t solely address victims of genuine psychopaths but people who have been hurt in general is very telling; however, those who read it and join PF end up using the words psychopath and narcissist by default.

I might be biased—actually, I definitely am—but I think PsychopathFree.com has one of the coolest healing processes out there. We believe in education, open dialogue, validation, and self-discovery. We have a uniquely inspiring user base, full of resilient values and honest friendships.

I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. Laughing is generally healthier. The only thing open about the place is the back door, through which they constantly (and abruptly) shove others. Many compare the way one relates to the forum to a toxic relationship; by the time you get doubts and want to confront the establishment or leave, you have too much invested already, as they know your details and intimate story, hence you choose to stay on their good side and not draw attention to yourself.

It’s a funny world, isn’t it? We have doctors who kill for a living and key people in corporations working with governing bodies who are supposed to regulate their practice. And we have people with awful ethics writing books about human interaction.

Here is a real gem:

But first, you’ll need to forget everything you thought you knew about people. Understanding psychopathy requires letting go of your basic emotional instincts. Remember, these are people who prey on forgiveness. They thrive on your need for closure. They manipulate compassion and exploit sympathy.

And they’re surprised people keep comparing them to a cult…

LATER EDIT

After some pondering, I figured posting the conversation I came across accidentally makes sense in order to warn others, with all precautions taken to hide the details of everyone involved (aside from an admin as the way an admin behaves is quite important).

As mentioned in my comment below, a relatively new member questioned the status quo, politely saying he would prefer a quick solution rather than months or years of analysing the difficult relationship. He named the thread ”Our own obsession”. Nothing unusual – unless you’re a devout PF member, reacting to every word with suspicion. Here is what happened next:

PF gang up 2- mod

PF gang up 2- mod

PF gang up 3 - Copy

PF gang up 3 - Copy.1

Still on the good enough side, pretending to try to be helpful, though notice the tone. I covered a few lines giving details of the OP’s personal situation.

PF gang up 7 - Copy

PF gang up 7.1

Notice here the “WE”/ “OUR”, which the OP had been jumped for, is kosher when used by an experienced forum member. Hence while the member felt outraged she was being included into the OP’s “our own obsession”, he should be fine with the “we can be toxic to other people”.

The new member needs to understand the following:

-He has found the ultimate experts in the book and forum. Doubting them is like questioning evolution. He is not on the site to share his views in an equal environment, but to be told what to do.

-The experts know better than he does how long his recovery is supposed to last, even though the human mind is the land of all possibilities.  He has to accept the fact that he’ll be suffering for a year or more; arguing otherwise is like arguing pigs can fly. Imagine the fucking nerve, telling someone what they are supposed to feel and for how long, and discouraging them from trying to recover faster. If anything, this is proof of the concerns from others (that their admin ridicules by calling them “concern trolls”) are valid. They are effectively trying to drill the need to dwell on a bad relationship into people’s heads. They don’t want people to get better as soon as possible.

Still wanting for an apology or acquiescence, the member’s tone changes quickly.

PF gang up 11 - Copy

PF gang up 11 - Copy.1

The member making that accusation also wrote the gems below. How does the term gaslighting even apply to that quote? It’s basically an attempt to find a familiarly-sounding “crime” to pin on the comrade who was undermining the PF revolution with contrary views.

PF gang up 9 - Copy

PF gang up 9 - Copy.1

That about sums it up (the attitude on PF). Notice how polite he was trying to be, while still maintaining his point of view. His politeness was met with disbelief and as a personal attack.

He obviously had  a healthy view on taking one’s life back, meaning stopping the toxic, consuming rumination. Taking one’s life back is impossible without taking one’s mind back. But that’s not allowed on PF; one is never supposed to be better off than the average member, who still ruminates daily. ”I want to get better quickly” is seen as ‘‘ you shouldn’t be ruminating for this length of time”, directed at them, which is visibly a touchy subject since it makes members so angry instantly.

Subsequently, the thread disappeared into the big nowhere.

Like I said, I had just stumbled in there intending to spend no more than a minute, after not visiting the site for weeks.  Who knows how often this actually happens; it’s all erased within hours and members carry on, pretending not to see the nastiness.

Hence… so much for open dialogue, self-discovery and whatever PR speech their admin was giving.

If you register on PF with an open mind and heart, chances are this will happen to you. In fact, it is very common for members to be banned on the first day, after just a few posts.

Note: I am attaching this here to avoid writing yet another blog post about Psychopath Free.

Recently, the interest in speaking out regarding the recovery forum phenomenon has grown, former members seeking to expose it for what it is, namely emotional quackery.

This YouTube video describes it as a mental trap, as many former members have before. The interest in this blog is also growing, judging by the traffic increase, most of it via Facebook (where I don’t have an account so I can’t tell what’s going on). As they spread their propaganda, the importance of shedding some light on matters is significant in environments which constitute rich recruitment pools for them.

I was thinking recently of the amount of information such forums obtain on individuals who are desperate for a friendly ear or for an explanation they cannot realistically obtain from external sources – much like people being approached by quacks in their hour of need, with a miraculous solution for their health problems. This site saved my life, a common expression of gratitude from enthusiastic new members, indicates that some people are literally desperate when they land there.

Today, privacy is a frequently used word, when the reality behind it has almost disappeared. However, one is rarely willing to allow complete strangers full access into their lives, bedroom included.

You have a social life – work, acquaintances, hobbies; people in it only see what you consider safe for the public eye. The you have a private life, populated by family and close friends, who know more about you but not necessarily everything.The rest, you save for those you trust the most.

If you don’t hold back at all it’s normally before a therapist, life coach , a priest you genuinely trust etc. And they all have a few things in common: actual knowledge regarding people, experience with others and most importantly, a policy of confidentiality. Moreover, they have accountability. At least you know who they are.

Think about what you’re giving access to on forums such as PF.

  • Information regarding your family, legal status, children, custody case, other details with legal ramifications.
  • The most problematic relationships in your life.
  • Your current and overall mental health and emotional state.
  • Information regarding your hobbies, habits, preferences, political views, spiritual views etc, down to what you do on a daily basis.
  • Detailed accounts of your most painful memories (all types of abuse), some of which you are most likely revealing for the first time.
  • Detailed accounts of your childhood memories, with an openness to be analysed by others in that sense, to be told how past traumas have affected you.
  • Information regarding your vices, affairs, addictions, phobias and deepest insecurities – which they can use against you later.
  • Information regarding your sex life, past and present.

Basically, all your defences are down. Anything you would normally keep from public view is now in their database. Forever.

On top of that, according to former members with inside knowledge, here is what they can find without your permission, using their forum software, your digital footprint as well as other data you automatically provide when posting:

  • Your Facebook profile (though I’m not sure to what extent) and at least the amount of information which is public by default;
  • Other social media profiles, including on other forums, where you thought you were posting anonymously;
  • Your internet browsing, apparently;
  • Private messages you send to other members.

Obviously, most people would not agree to that invasion of privacy by any group or institution.

But they would agree even less when learning the PF team accesses all this data in order to determine if you are a danger to the forum and potentially a psychopath yourself.  So basically, people who usually clutch at straws to prove others are  “evil” and disordered have full access to who you are, who your family is and maybe even where you work. I wonder what’s wrong with this picture ….

YET ANOTHER EDIT 🙂

Some people might argue psychology and psychiatry are dodgy in terms of credibility, since they rely on speculation instead of measurable data. But there are certain things you’re not likely to ever hear when turning to a professional, this being one of them:pfnewban3 mod

pfnewban3 mod 2

Granted this person seemed annoyed and quite hostile – however, when starting a community for those who are in emotional distress one should expect some members to be hyper-vigilant and have a difficult attitude. Tact is part of the difference between those who have studied human behaviour for a good few years and those who base their expert status on thin air. Whatever the approach of a professional is when hitting a brick wall, so to speak, I bet it’s nothing like the paragraph pasted above, or the one below, addressed to the same new member.

pfnewban4

Not to say that people on forums should put up with any type of attitude; however, the niche they have selected basically implies that some new members will be in a bad place emotionally and even psychologically. So whilst no one is obligated to show endless patience, it surely doesn’t help for them to be called nasty, horrible and vile (the OP ended up with a couple of those labels after being banned), following only a short exchange of replies. The hostility they perceive from the world at large must increase dramatically.

The team shows no worries at all about the high potential of attracting people who are in a troubled state to the forum, to be swiftly booted; they don’t seem to wonder what can happen as a result.

Also, one is expected not only to have the perfect composure at all times, but to give advice to others (their self-involvement being a red flag according to their main admin), unless they have fallen out of grace by breaking “no contact”, which is when they are unworthy, as they are – try not to spill your coffee when reading this – “projecting a false image that is affecting other members”. I wonder who is really projecting here…

no contact pf- edited

no contact pf- edited2

That, by the way, was in response to members complaining that others were allowed to keep their “no contact” time intact although they had resumed contact at some point. The mere fact that they feel righteous indignation regarding other people’s lives and want others to be “stripped of their badge”, so to speak, says a lot about what they’re really doing there in the first place.

Examples could go on an on, but surely these are enough to provide a glimpse into the overall atmosphere unsuspecting people find there.

And in case some members or staff members ever wonder what gives me the right to post these screen shots here and comment on them, well, it’s the same “entity” or concept giving them the right to hold other people’s information captive, to hunt for thought crimes in their history and hold witch trials for all to see, indulging freely in all types of language and speculation. If they can do it, so can others.